Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to legal proceedings. What we are talking about are moral decisions that fall short of legal action, right? We often have to act upon incomplete information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd say it does. You are an excellent example; the cry of "there's less sexual assault; we've done enough already!" is one of the big factors that make rape more likely.

They don't. You are creating a strawman; the only person here claiming that is you.

The best way to allow another Trump to be elected is to assemble an army of ElectricFetuses saying "haven't we men done ENOUGH? Those allegations are decades old. There's no proof!"

Congratulations; you got your Trump. You will forgive me if I fight you on electing another.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your delusional, as delusional as those right wing bible thumpers that think gays having gay sex is somehow ruining the country via god wrath. Our Culture has a very low and falling rates or rape and harrassment, women have full rights, even more rights then men, WHAT FUCKING MORE DO YOU WANT???

Gee where could I have gotten that idea, I mean even you turn around and accuse me of all people of being of the same type of man as a rapist. But ok do you want me to pull up quotes of feminist? How about some Jezebel articles?

What rights? Name me the rights I'm selling?

You shifted the issue, now tell me what rape prevention that target young males looks like.

Well then, I have not see, I have not read it.

Franken? Any man that is force out of career without due process?

What offense? Your going to accuse someone of a crime you should have more than just talk.

Oh no the horror, i'm sure all the men that are beaten and assaulted physically suffer lost wages, lost employment and increase health cost, no one cares.

They should have named their abusers years ago, to police, to lawyers, in a court, social media is a lynch mob outside the law.

Stop talking about it? What are we doing now? I saying it is not a viable political platform, you can talk all you want about it outside of politics.

Oh so I started this thread?

No one has the right to accuse people of crimes and have them punished outside the law, what your asking for is special rights and privileges.

Yeah and gay sodomy directly harms the nation because god sends hurricanes, yeah.

... you think rape drives the lack of access to healthcare? You are as delusional as a bible thumper.

Yeah lack of clean water affects millions of people, lack of good food affects millions of people, lack medical care, lack of education, having my ass pinched, like so many millions of others, that didn't affect me, if it did I would have went to the police as soon as possible.

Well that is you, you are not all women, you are one person. Also I'm not saying boys don't cry, I'm saying they cry less, because women in generally did not bred with men that cried more. That is evolution, its fact, not ridiculous, are you a creationist now?

Answer the question: would you find the behavior attractive?

Yeah yeah and the Christians say gays are ruining the nation, bullshit.

There that speaking for all women again. And again what rights am I denying women? If someone rapes you, assaults you, harrasss you, and you want something done about it, go to the police. You don't tweet about it out of the blue years later, rise an internet warlock hunt to punish men without due process.

Your slanderous strawman.

What you want a book on evolutionary psychology?

Are you questioning that men cry less then women? That its Biological? https://www.thecut.com/2015/01/why-do-women-cry-more-than-men.html

BINGO!

Oh you had it for a moment, but then it flies right over your head.

Yeah I knew that would trigger you. Can't see the trees for the bitches, completely miss that his transformation was a result of being told he was "too nice". As for what women want: can you explain why romance novels are a multi-billion dollar industry? It is practically porn for women, I wonder what kind of men are in them?

I will offer you another example. In the same way that aspects of male sexuality can be studied by examining the contents of hardcore pornography, romance novels serve as a window to understanding female sexuality. Irrespective of the cultural settings, romance novels possess very similar story lines. The male hero is always a tall prince, who is also a neurosurgeon, and a financial tycoon. He wrestles crocodiles on his six-pack abs, and engages in countless other reckless and risky behaviors but always comes out on top.

This archetype of the male hero corresponds to women’s fantasies regarding the ideal mate. A few years ago, a publishing company was keen to create a new line of romance novels that departed from these “sexist” stereotypes. They created romance novels with a radically different male archetype that defied the standard metrics of masculinity sought by women. What do you think happened? The project failed, because you cannot force people (in this case women) to buy things that are grossly inconsistent with specific aspects of their human nature. --- https://www.institutcoppet.org/2015/03/25/an-interview-with-gad-saad-by-gregoire-canlorbe

 

Bullshit. Once again unfalsifiable claims, can't even question your ideology without being blamed as the problem.

Yeah yeah and the alt-righters say it is a strawman that they want to exterminate all the jews and blacks. Do you want me to quote feminist?

Oh there is already an army of me's doing that, fighting them is what will get trump elected. Again with this reverse argument tactic of your that flies in the face of the fact trump was elected: we all pushed that the man openly proclaims he grabbed pussy, and yet he got elected, so why the fuck do you still think your loser strategy of focusing on sexual assault claims will work? How is it so hard for you to understand people don't care enough about sexual assault, they rather elect that pig boar on the hope of better jobs, even if they have to deal with him garbing their pussies. Hey here is an idea maybe we should focus on what people want rather than issues of upper middle class people who think someone garbing their ass is more important then healthcare, that spend too much time on social media?

Oh so I'm guessing when 2020 comes around you and I won't be voting for the same candidate for president then?

 

Where do you work? do you mind if I call your employer up and tell them how you sexually assault women? why not?

 

The pathology of playing make-believe while fantasizing about "triggering" women is pretty fucking sick.

And while it is true we must take such behavior seriously, the context in which we do so is important.

We are not required to take someone seriously when they wish to denigrate men by pretending superlative stupidity; we need not take their pretenses of ignorance any more seriously than believing they really are so ignorant. Still, that one should at least pretend danger presents another aspect by which we must decide to take him seriously.

 

Problem being that someone can be accused, lose their career, have their lives ruined in the public eye... then be found completely "not guilty" and still be, effectively, unemployable because of public image.

*shrug* again, if we as a society are ok with that, that's fine - just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

 

i notice that you shrug when you know you are spouting bullshit. if one is found actually "not guilty" in a court of law, how is it that they are 'effectively', unemployable? you mean like OJ? or when there is a verdict of "not guilty" but doesn't prove innocence either? if one can be proven actually innocent of the crime and it's made public, then that image would be repaired and reversed.

besides, your point is moot as accusations/allegations, unfortunately, are the first step of identifying the culprit. what are you trying to say? for instance, if you were assaulted, you would not make accusations (if legitimately taken place) against the perpretrator for fear that it may harm his/her public image?

it's a given there are bad people out there who do make false accusations but that is in any area, not just sexual harassment or assault.

 

You are more than welcome to your opinion, of course. The shrug is more of a "y'all are gonna believe and do what you want anyway, so whatever"

And what do you propose for those who never get their day in court? Or, for a more extreme example, those who take their own life:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...ocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

Or

Do a quick search online - there are literally thousands upon thousands of instances like this, for everything from petty crime to people sitting on death row for murders they did not commit.

Another such case, this time where someone used rape allegations as a form of retribution;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-rape-claims-allowed-ruin-hero-PC-s-life.html

This, thankfully, had a "happy" outcome - she was punished for her misdeeds. However, the damage is done:

His career is effectively over, and he still occasionally has to deal with people calling him a rapist in public.

So, he was arrested the next night after she made her complaint, but it took several years for her to face any consequences of her actions?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a good and easy way to lodge these accusations - but right now, people are being damned from the moment the accusation is made, regardless of if it has any truth to it. That's a problem.

Personally, I think what should happen is that no names are released to the media until after the investigation is completed; avoid the whole "court of public opinion" as much as possible...

but, well, with "Entertainment News" and ratings being what they are, we know that just won't happen.

 

Angry? You really fail to understand what going on beyond the monitor. I'm here drinking my espressos and about to take my dogs out cross country skiing, going to take the day off because I got no interns today to order around.

The right to genital integrity, the right to not be drafted, the right to abort, give up to adoption or drop a baby off at a safe heaven while a man have no reproductive rights and must pay for children he never wanted by force of law. And then there is marriage = archaic, obsolete, immoral, practically a form of modern slavery for who ever is earning the most money (usually the man, because the women CHOOSES to have and raise the kids, here is an idea: have a househusband instead, but that does not happen often because instinct) .

No. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/panic-not-answer-article-1.3651778

Except upon closer scrutiny, the Newsweek/WSJ poll showed nothing of the kind. It defined "harassment" very broadly. And women were asked if they had ever received "unwelcome sexual advances" at any point in their working lives. It did not distinguish between minor incidents and more serious cases of actionable harassment. And no time limit was given.

The General Social Survey is one of the most trusted sources of data in the social sciences. In 2014, a random sample of Americans was asked a straightforward question: "In the last 12 months, were you sexually harassed by anyone while you were on the job?"

To that question, only 3.6% of women said yes. That is down from 6.1% in 2002. These results do not suggest an epidemic. Nor even a trendline moving in the wrong direction.

I have been sexually harassed in life, I don't care, why because I'm a man and because I have bigger problems. I'm not going to go on social media and name names of a graduate student firting with me and shakes her ass in my face and I felt so uncomfortable that I clutched my pearls and fell over into my fainting couch, first of all because no one cares because penis and because I rather complain about how fucking high insurance costs are and my changing income bracket makes it hard to get assistant or not. That I would rather have universal healthcare and take a hundred unwanted come ons than no universal healthcare.

You have this backwards, we need to win elections, get back the government, implement laws to make sure we keep the government like improve the economy for the lower classes and deal with gerrymandering and voter suppression, after all that then, and only then, people like you need to demand specific solution to sexual harassment be implemented in law, instead of a nebulous "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" and "rapeculture" that cost use votes by rallying a reactionary counter culture. Now to win back the government a platform that spends as much time talking about sexual harassment and middle to upper class women's "issues" LOSES, it LOSES against even a disgusting moronic pig boar who grabs pussy and wants to fuck his own daughter! Ergo we need to talk about issues that actually matters to the electorate. Understand that poor uneducated women care more about jobs and a future for their children then if someone pinches their ass, that we would need to raise the median standard of living up dramatically for most women to find sexual harassment as an issue worthy of the highest political attention.

And no I did not read the rest of your posts, TL'DR.

 

Well, since you're okay with law enforcement deliberately tanking rape cases and harassing rape victims, you're going to have to explain to us why anything you think you have to say matters.

It's pretty clear you have nothing to say.

 

Since you're OK with completely and utterly misrepresenting what I have said, using dishonest and disingenuous fallacy to try and further your agenda instead of discussing what is actually written before you, then I see no reason why I should bother taking you seriously at all.

It's almost sad, given how long you have harped on about how we've cultivated all of this in the back room, that you are now so completely embracing the mentality when it suits you. I say almost because, really, it isn't that unexpected.

But, then, I guess that is what you've wanted all along

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which is correct. None of the alt-right movements out there today want to exterminate all the jews and blacks. If you make that argument, you lose.

So your argument is "if you point out one aspect of the candidate and he still wins, you can't point that out if you want to win the next time?"

Trump was also a Republican. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for a democrat will fail. You can only vote for republicans if you want to win.
Trump was also a man. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for a woman will fail. You can only vote for men if you want to win.
Trump was also a billionaire. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for someone who is not a billionaire will fail. You can only vote for billionaires if you want to win.
Trump also bankrupted several companies. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for someone has only successful companies will fail. You can only vote for business failures if you want to win.

Would you like a few more examples of how mind-numbingly stupid that argument is? Or would you like to keep making it?

We did. Result - Clinton won the popular vote.

I am guessing you'll excuse Trump's actions and vote against him again. And if his opponent loses, you will blame all the people who voted against Trump.

 

billvon - maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make; rather, I think the point was that, despite focusing on all the reasons Trump was a terrible candidate, he still won because his base will not be swayed, no matter what.

Engaging those that, today, still back Trump is pointless - nothing will change their minds. What should happen, instead, would be getting the rest of the populace out and united behind a candidate (something the GOP is proving very adept at preventing)

 

That might be true. In which case nothing you can do matters.

However, I don't think that's true. Witness Roy Moore's downfall in a place with a huge republican base. There are well-supported accusations that can cause any candidate to founder. If anything, Clinton was not willing to engage Trump at as low a level as he was engaging her - and that cost her among the least educated blocs of voters.

Agreed there.

 

Yeah, but if I'm not mistaken, we saw a rather dramatic increase in the minority votes, particularly among black women (higher than, I believe, even the turnout for Obama). Meanwhile, a number of the more moderate Republicans either wrote in a candidate, or stayed home.

It wasn't that we convinced the Roy Moore / Hardcore Republican's to vote for the Democrat - rather, we got more of the Democrats and Independents out to vote Dem - and even with such incredible (and well supported) allegations against Moore, he still only lost by a sliver. I would bet money that if the GOP hadn't abandoned him for a while and called for him to drop out; if they had doubled down on the "fake news" calls, I would wage he'd have still won.

Much as it sucks - I simply don't see a good solution to this problem... or, at least, a solution that isn't likely to invoke bloodshed on some level. When you cannot engage the population in intelligent debate and get them to review facts; when they prefer to handwave away anything they don't like as "fake news"... well, what do you do?

 

And got a lot of republicans to stay home out of disgust. "Well, I'll never vote for a democrat! But Roy Moore sounds like a child molester. Maybe I will sit this one out."

You out fake news them. Preface every mention of Trump with "rapist." Get his victims on TV for ten minutes every hour.

Is that the way democracy is supposed to work? Of course not. But it's what people want, apparently.